Glow for It!

Catastrophes are often laced with millions of personal stories, untold side effects and society-changing trauma. That Japan has been forced through the two major nuclear traumas, two nuclear bombs dropped on her cities at the end of World War II and a meltdown in a power plant, the only nation on earth to have been so doubly-cursed, is a gigantic game-changer for Japan and for us all. But the little side-stories – the tainted vegetables and milk, the rescued grandmother and her grandson from a floating house, the radiation increase in Tokyo tap water, and now the potential radiation in mail emanating from Japan, reflect those aspects of this disaster that probably weren't in the government disaster planning manuals.

This little item was reported first by Honolulu's KITV (and on KITV.com) on March 16^th and has been followed by our national media ever since: The U.S. Postal Service in Hawaii has begun checking mail arriving from Japan after mail in San Francisco and New York showed low levels of radiation, USPS officials said. "It's not like the Customs Border Patrol made a special case for checking out mail from Japan; they just reported their routinely acquired results: CBP routinely screens mail for radiation. There are fixed radiation monitors as well as portable units that can be used to screen mail and cargo on the tarmac." KITV.com. After all, we're always on the lookout for terrorists sending malevolent packages via "snail mail", and the U.S. does account for about 40% of the world's old-world "mail-by-paper."

While few of us actually receive mail or packages from Japan, the risks for those who do remain minimal: "Currently, there have been no items detected that would be deemed hazardous," according to a statement by the inspection service. "American citizens should feel comfortable with these security measures that ensure the safety and security of their mail." Washington Post, March 17^th. But that's not the point; after all; it's how life permanently changes for the few and the many after such a startling and unexpected national trauma.

Not that the United States seems to be taking the events in northeastern Japan sufficiently seriously (at least not publicly): "The nuclear crisis is Japan, while severe, does not warrant any immediate changes in the U.S", a top U.S. nuclear official said [March 21^st]...The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's executive director for operations, Bill Borchardt, said officials have "a high degree of confidence" that operations at the 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states are safe. He said inspectors at each of the plants have "redoubled efforts to guard against any safety breaches." AOLNews.com, March 21st. Forget about those reactors, built for lower tolerances than the quakes they are like to face, sitting on our own coast at or near major fault lines.

But look at how changes have hit us because of traumatic events. Little things like waiting at the gate for the arrival of a flight carrying a loved one... gone. Getting on a plane by just showing your boarding pass, never having to remove your shoes or placing your larger electronics (today a laptop or tablet) in a separate container for screening... gone. Remember when X-rays were simply a medical tool? A scant ten years ago, who knew what TSA or Homeland Security would mean?

But are we really better off? Are we safer? Are we deploying cosmetic defensive techniques (even adding tens of thousands of new bureaucrats to do what other agencies should have already been doing?) and missing the bigger picture? Are we spending and planning in a sensible way, or one that seems politically expedient, but actually adds layers of bureaucracy (hey, budget-cutters?!) to disaster relief? Like failing to reinforce our reactors for real to meet the challenges that they will inevitably face (even if only once in a hundred years). Or not upgrading levees and dams before we have to spend billions to mop up a preventable mess. Maybe making ourselves targets "literally poking the bees nest" by rushing to deploy our military in what we believe is our "vision of what's good for the world" angering masses and constantly reminding the rest of the world that our extreme military might makes us scary, untrustworthy and appear somewhat as a bully, even when those same people and nations ask for our intervention.

Or are we a nation that has become so reactive, so unable to spend money or adopt policies on a sensible and proactive basis, that we have become incapable of doing the obvious until we learn the lesson the hard way? Indeed, it does seem as if our government has truly stopped being able to fulfill its obvious mandate; the system is severely broken.

I'm Peter Dekom, and I wonder exactly how you fix a system than seems incapable of doing the obvious and implementing common sense.